On Permission And Pantywastes

[+Alan2]

Again, this is by far the exception rather than the rule.  Sure a very small percentage of caches are left abandoned to rot.  (What’s the half life of an ammo can?)  But the woods behind the ball field are chock full of old baseballs rotting under the leaves, who cares?  Did anybody die because of it?

So, if a group of people going out to clean up the park see a bunch of baseballs lying around, they're just going to ignore them?

 

My guess is that they are either going to throw them in the trash or give them to some kids to play with. I seriously doubt they would think "leave the balls there...the game might still be going on".

 

George

Actually I found a Little League Baseball while caching one time in Manhattan. I stuck it in my trunk. At a geocache get together in NJ, I stuck it in an ammo can that briansnat hid in Palisades Park.

 

This may be off topic but I thought it was an interesting counterpoint to your counterpoint.

 

edit:spelling

Edited December 3, 2003 by Alan2

[+nincehelser]

I thought that it was already pointed out that use of the gazebo already requires a permit, so that answers the tire storage question.

Yeah, but you see, the real secret is you don't tell anyone you're storing them there. You don't need any silly permit. There's no specific law banning snow tires in the gazebo, so it must be OK.

 

If everyone stays cool, my snow tires will be safe. I just hope the electrician doesn't rat me out.

 

George

[+Alan2]

Yeah, but you see, the real secret is you don't tell anyone you're storing them there. You don't need any silly permit. There's no specific law banning snow tires in the gazebo, so it must be OK.

But there are rules against using the woods for storage of things like tires. Caches on the other hand are not stored but left to be used as part of a game or hobby like a minnow bait can is left by a fisherman to keep his little shiners from swimming away!. The tires are the other hand serve no function once they're off the car; that's why they're considered stored and prohibited.

 

Big difference.

[ju66l3r]

What is it with the self-righteous self-loathing?  If you think geocaching is littering, and you participate in the game, why are you complaining about the litter you look for?  Why are you playing at all?

 

Is it your point to get permission to litter?

One last time for those who didn't read it the first four or five times it was said by two or three of us so as to clear any further misconceptions:

 

NOBODY HERE THINKS IT IS LITTER

 

The reason for defining litter in a legal sense is to point out that there *ARE* regulations in which the law *DOES* cover geocaching as a potentially illegal affair because the broad definition of litter includes geocaching! It does! No way around it....OR IS THERE??

 

Yes! It's only a crime if those responsible want to issue the ticket, arrest the suspect, detain the plastic box for evidence! This whole time Criminal (and others) have maintained that they only do what is right and legal...but IF they wanted to, the land managers *COULD* use the definition of littering to apply to your hidden geocache. If you don't ask permission, there is the risk that the land manager will find your box and go bananas in a rage of nature-loving frenzy he might want to string you up by the heels and tape pine-cones to your eyelids (or issue a small fine or just tell you not to hide anything there ever again and send a nasty letter/phone call to Jeremy).

 

By asking permission FIRST, you can avoid this nasty legal snafu by getting permission to place the cache! You will make friends with the park staff and bring all the wonders and joys of geocaching to their little corner of the world! It will never be considered litter by anyone, because they will agree that it is nothing they want to prosecute since you pointed out that it is benign and beneficial in ways! They will want to tie you up and cover you with kisses and bunny love!

 

In a warped legal way, we are asking permission to litter and in many places we are getting it that way!! I mean look at the trade off, you litter one little plastic box under a tree stump and get 200 pieces of litter off of the trails on the way in and out of the geocaches easily! It's "Let's Make a Deal" and all the doors are grand prizes!

 

But for those who would choose to litter (sure, it's harmless littering so nobody needs to know about it but us!) without the permission of the park, if they ever catch on, it will be a cold cold day in Ghana before they let us put anything back in the park again...

 

By the way, did I mention NOBODY HERE THINKS IT IS LITTER.

 

PS - please please please try and comprehend *everything* I write...I'm tired of pointing to the part in the NC law that explains how their trash receptacles are not litter (no matter how you slice it) under the explicit exceptions printed twice in this thread and once in the link I posted...

[+Criminal]

If you don't ask permission, there is the risk that the land manager will find your box and go bananas in a rage of nature-loving frenzy he might want to string you up by the heels and tape pine-cones to your eyelids

 

Now that I’d want to see! I’m tempted to turn myself in just to see said frenzy.

 

By asking permission FIRST, you can avoid this nasty legal snafu by getting permission to place the cache! You will make friends with the park staff and bring all the wonders and joys of geocaching to their little corner of the world! It will never be considered litter by anyone, because they will agree that it is nothing they want to prosecute since you pointed out that it is benign and beneficial in ways!

 

In a perfect world, maybe. But they, like all of us, are an unknown quantity. There’s no way of predicting how they will react.

 

They will want to tie you up and cover you with kisses and bunny love!

 

That’s giving me a chubby right now!

 

In a warped legal way, we are asking permission to litter and in many places we are getting it that way!!

But for those who would choose to litter (sure, it's harmless littering so nobody needs to know about it but us!) without the permission of the park, if they ever catch on, it will be a cold cold day in Ghana before they let us put anything back in the park again...

 

By the way, did I mention NOBODY HERE THINKS IT IS LITTER.

 

So, why do you think it’s littering?

[+sept1c_tank]

Geocaching is not littering!

 

Perception is reality.

Edited December 3, 2003 by sept1c_tank

[+seneca]

The reason for defining litter in a legal sense is to point out that there *ARE* regulations in which the law *DOES* cover geocaching as a potentially illegal affair because the broad definition of litter includes geocaching!  It does!  No way around it....OR IS THERE??

 

I have not seen one definition of litter, dictionary, legal, or regulative mumbo jumbo, posted in this discussion or others, which would include a properly placed geocache. None. Nada. Not one. Nil. I know what a geocache is: IT IS NOT LITTER. I have read the legal defintions of litter and IT IS NOT GEOCACHE. Statutes are interpreted by courts in a way that makes sense - and just as it would never make sense to find that a beach towel placed on a beach for a purpose is litter, it would never make sense to find that a geocache placed in a stump for a purpose is litter. You may find some power-tripping gungho type with less than average IQ who might try to stuff a geocache into some legal definition of litter but he will fail. Just like pigs are not cows, Geocaches are not litter by any definition.

Edited December 3, 2003 by seneca

[+sept1c_tank]

Seneca, I guess that means we're in agreement!

[+Divine]

After reading the responses, I bet I have an idea of which political party each respondent belongs to.

I'm curious.

[ju66l3r]

The reason for defining litter in a legal sense is to point out that there *ARE* regulations in which the law *DOES* cover geocaching as a potentially illegal affair because the broad definition of litter includes geocaching!  It does!  No way around it....OR IS THERE??

 

I have not seen one definition of litter, dictionary, legal, or regulative mumbo jumbo, posted in this discussion or others, which would include a properly placed geocache. None. Nada. Not one. Nil. I know what a geocache is: IT IS NOT LITTER. I have read the legal defintions of litter and IT IS NOT GEOCACHE. Statutes are interpreted by courts in a way that makes sense - and just as it would never make sense to find that a beach towel placed on a beach for a purpose is litter, it would never make sense to find that a geocache placed in a stump for a purpose is litter. You may find some power-tripping gungho type with less than average IQ who might try to stuff a geocache into some legal definition of litter but he will fail. Just like pigs are not cows, Geocaches are not litter by any definition.

The point is that I'd rather not wait until it reached court to determine whether the judge agreed with me or not (even if it's a 99.9% lock that he would).

 

Especially since all I had to do was be polite and mention that I was going to hide one to the manager directly in the first place.

 

Also to Criminal:

In a perfect world, maybe. But they (land managers), like all of us, are an unknown quantity. There’s no way of predicting how they will react.

 

Exactly my point! But wouldn't you agree that they are more likely to react better if they are made aware of geocaching and your intent to place a geocache BEFORE they find it on their own? Don't you see that that's all I've been trying to point out this whole time now?

[+nincehelser]

But there are rules against using the woods for storage of things like tires. Caches on the other hand are not stored but left to be used as part of a game or hobby like a minnow bait can is left by a fisherman to keep his little shiners from swimming away!. The tires are the other hand serve no function once they're off the car; that's why they're considered stored and prohibited.

 

Big difference.

Nope. Little difference.

 

A chache is storage, plain and simple. Look it up on www.dictionary.com if you need to.

 

Arguing the definitions of litter or geocache, and other terms is little more than futile here. I guess it gives you some practice before going in front of a judge, but, in the end, it's all going to come down to the court's rulling.

 

They aren't bound by things like dictionary definitions. After all, it was a court that decided a "tomato" would be classified as a "vegetable" rather than "fruit" as far as US commerce is concerned. (How is it seen in other countries, BTW?)

 

Perception is the key. Most people have no idea what a geocache is. At the best they may think "I don't know what this is, but it doesn't seem to belong here".

 

People understand that baseballs and frisbees are toys, and might be found in unusual places...especially around play areas. But tupperware or ammo boxes? They just aren't part of the public mindset, except for picknicks and wars. Tupperware is typically found in a refridgerator, not a tree stump.

 

George

[+bons]

I can't belive I'm bothering with this. My apologies.

 

nincehelser: Despite what you think, when a person finds a tupperware container with the words "geocaching.com" on it with a peice of paper describing geocaching in it, it's not "rocket science" to figure out what's going on.

 

The rest of the world isn't filled with idiots. (But heaven knows there's one or two people that just make you wonder...)

 

----

 

Edit: (rant) If you have something new to add the discussion, fine, but if you're going to keep rehashing the same stuff over and over again even people who once thought you had a point are going to start to wonder about you.

 

Criminal and I agree on some things and disagree on others. That's normal. He's said his peice, and I've said mine and if anyone isn't swayed by our messages, hopefully they at least understand out points of view, even if they don't agree with them.

 

If, after 7 pages, you still don't think people understand you and what you're saying, well, it's probably not the people.

Edited December 3, 2003 by bons

[+woodsters]

The debate can be argued from both sides, well. The rules and laws are written for the benefit of those who enforce them. They can be vivid or not vivid at all. It leaves room for interpretation, benefitting those who enforce of course. As others have stated, there is some rule/law that they can tie in to geocaching. It doesn't have to state the word "geocache" in it and mostly like won't unless there's is a direct movement against it and also if there is some resistance. We, as geocachers agree that a cache is not trash, at least not to us. To others, it may be. To me an empty soda can is trash, to my son, it's 5 cents. When we moved up here to New England this past year, all the stuff we sat out by the road while loading the moving truck was trash to us. To the guys moving in the people that bought our house, a lot of it wasn't trash.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with the support and heat they get and from where. As one mentioned about the permit and the park bench process, it all done because of some nitwit somewhere putting heat to them about the "environment". So to keep the pc-ness, they do "environmental studies". We all agree it's a bunch of hogwash, but it's part of life in these here United States. Everyone has a right. Whether it's for or against.

 

I believe the overall look at getting approval is a PR thing. Yes we can go and hide caches places and not ask permission on public lands. We un hte chance of them telling us to remove or as some letters have stated even worse. Most people spend a good bit of money to throw away on a single cache. Of course we run into that with muggles anyway. I think the better we PR the sport, the better it will be in the long run. We may get some resistance at first, but if we keep trying, we will victor. We know the sport is no worse than any other things recognized and allowed. Geocaching.com can not control what goes on physically off the site and with cache placements. We as cachers can try to help control it, but land managers can play a big role in helping control some of the negative aspects of it.

[+geospotter]

Years ago I was on a business trip to San Francisco and the company there had an office picnic at a local park (Angel Island?). A group of us decided to play some touch football. There was a nice grassy area so we started playing there.

 

A park ranger came over and asked us to stop. "What? Is there some rule against football?"

 

"Nope. No rule against football, but there is a rule against damaging the grass. If you can play football without damaging the grass go ahead."

 

It's similar with geocaching. No rule against geocaching, but there is a rule about littering. Now, you and I know that geocaching is NOT littering, but unless I can convince the park ranger it's not littering the cache will be removed. I'm sure they'll say "If you can geocache without leaving items in our park then go ahead."

 

If you go to court and win (fat chance), the rangers will just pick up all the caches and put them in the lost and found instead of the trash.

 

Not matter how you slice it, it boils down to two choices. You can gamble that the rangers won't find out about the caches. Or you can be upfront and ask. How long are you willing to gamble with our sport?

 

Future cache hint: The cache is in the tires in the gazebo.

[+woodsters]

Not matter how you slice it, it boils down to two choices. You can gamble that the rangers won't find out about the caches. Or you can be upfront and ask. How long are you willing to gamble with our sport?

 

Yep someone is bound to tell on you or even worst, ask if it's ok to leave a cache.

[+TEAM 360]

Snow tires in the gazebo, jumping out of airplanes, tomatos, vegetables and fruit...

I think this thread is done....

Edited December 3, 2003 by TEAM 360

[+seneca]

I have no problem with opening up dialogue with land managers so that they don’t have any misconceptions about what geoaching is. Such communication should of course emphasize the benign, environmental friendly nature of geocaching. It should state how our members in general are the type of park guests any ranger would love to have. It would ask that they be considerate of our member’s property if they happen to come across it. But if you go to the first post of this thread (please, please reread it), you will see that this is not what this topic is about. This topic is not about whether or not asking for permission gives a strategic political advantage when promoting geoacaching. It is about freedom. Freedom to engage in activities not prohibited by law. Freedom to geocache. It simply points out that, unless specifically prohibited by valid laws, we are free to engage in this activity on public lands and we are not required to ask permission. If you take issue with that, or think that it sounds naive, romantically sentimental or simply sucky then say so. In my opinion, if we do not have a strong belief that this is an activity that we have the right to do, then we will be at a very distinct disadvantage when dealing with attacks of small-minded persons who would try to stop us.

Edited December 3, 2003 by seneca

[+geospotter]

Seneca,

 

I think you missed the point of my last post (my fault, not yours).

 

This thread is about "freedom to engage in activities not prohibited by law."

 

While you see no specific law prohibiting geocaching, any legal scholar could probably produce dozens that can attack it from any number of angles. The "litter" approach just seems to be the most common.

[+seneca]

Seneca,

 

I think you missed the point of my last post (my fault, not yours).

 

This thread is about "freedom to engage in activities not prohibited by law." 

 

While you see no specific law prohibiting geocaching, any legal scholar could probably produce dozens that can attack it from any number of angles.  The "litter" approach just seems to be the most common.

That's an interesting topic for an entirely different forum discussion which could be called: "Laws and Regulations that arguably prohibit geocaching".

Edited December 3, 2003 by seneca

[cool_and_the_gang]

Holy carp! Are you guys still at it?

 

The issue is quite simple. It can be summed up alot more simply than with snow tire analogies and debating what is "litter" and what's not. Criminal wasn't the first person to summarize his feelings on unalienable rights. A group of wise men summarized it long ago thusly (emphasis added):

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

 

The policies of land managers restricting Geocaching is not that important to me. I've got more important things to worry about. I'm wieghing in only to point out that the debate between Criminal's views and others won't be resolved even if this thread goes on for another 7 pages. The energy spent here would be better spent elsewhere.

 

But whether you choose to direct your energies towards whether or not you

were allowed to hide an ammo box in the woods or towards fighting the many other and greater instances in which our liberties or the liberties of others are being trampled in this country or elsewhere, the point is the same:

 

If you don't agree with a policy, or if you passionatly believe that one should stay unchanged it is your responsiblity to act upon it regardless of your point of view. Changing won't be easy and there's no guarantee of success, but if it's important to you it is your responsibility to educate yourself on the matter, arm yourself with allies and approptiate information and set upon the appropriate avenues to affect change.

 

The choice of inaction amounts to tacit approval of the rules imposed by others and complaints that the situation is not to your liking are then without justification.

[+sbell111]

Where the heck is that complaint thread when I really need it?

[+Criminal]

I’d like to wrap this up. The original intent of the thread was to point out that we DO NOT need a new blanket rule requiring permission. We also don’t need another wet behind the ears cacher trying to change the game to suit them. We had to travel down a side street to debate whether or not permission is even required. I say no, others say yes.

 

The bottom line is this, do what you think best. Weigh the risks and stick out your neck is you are so inclined. My opinion on that is evident in the first post and reiterated to the first grade level for at least one whiner.

 

I’m a free American and as such will not request permission to engage in an activity that is good, moral, and legal.

 

Thanks to all who contributed thoughtful viewpoints, even those that are in opposition to my own.

[+Mark 42]

I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing, but I agree with you Criminal.

[+CO Admin]

Closed by request of thread Starter